A Proposal for Missouri and other states
Because Missouri and other states are what the pols consider "swing states," it makes sense to move to what Nebraska and Maine have done: go to a Congressional District method where electoral votes are apportioned according to who votes for whom.
http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/me_ne.htm
This would benefit both Republicans and Democrats. If the congressional districts in St. Louis and KC vote for the Democratic candidate and the more rural or GOP dominant districts vote for the GOP candidate, the electoral votes more accurately reflect our votes, as opposed to the winner-take-all method that has gone on too long.
What this means for Missouri and other states is that your vote counts more in reality. And the state's political profile is heightened by this method--a chance to get some votes even if a candidate doesn't carry all of the districts, more stops in our state to hear our voices/demands/complaints. Maine and Nebraska have implemented this; however, their political profiles haven't risen much. That's probably due to the fact that they traditionally vote a certain way and they don't have a lot of electoral votes. Missouri doesn't have a ton of electoral votes, but they're substantial enough to garner quite a bit of attention.
From my experience from voting in a presidential election in the Deep South, my trip to cast my vote for Gore in '00 was an exercise in futility. That can also be said for GOP backers who live in "blue states."
"The people of this country, not special interest big money, should be the source of all political power. Government must remain the domain of the general citizenry, not a narrow elite... This means that the values and preferences of all citizens, not just those who can get our attention by waving large campaign contributions in front of us, must be considered in the political debate. One person, one vote--no more and no less--the most fundamental of democratic principles."
-Senator Paul Wellstone
posted by Quintilian B. Nasty @ 9:32 PM
3 Comments:
This would benefit both Republicans and Democrats.
It would hurt Missouri's self-interest.
Whoever wins Missouri will currently gain an advantage of 11 electors over his opponent. By going to a proportional allocation of electors the state will almost certainly split 6-5 for the winner. That means the winner of the state only gains 1 elector over his opponent.
This will drastically reduce Missouri's influence on the national election, which will, in turn, drastically reduce the candidates' efforts to woo Missourians. Missouri would go from a crucial swing state to near irrelevance. This can't help but hurt Missouri on the national stage.
I believe this was voted on in Colorado during the 2004 election cycle and was decisively voted down.
Maybe if the proposal only took effect after being passed by some number of other states it would be palatable, but it could also magnify the power of those states that don't change their allocation method.
Also, can you imagine the gerrymandering fights that would occur if you allocated electors by congressional district? Ugh.
Travolta,
Although I think you might be on to something in your concise analysis of how this method might make Missouri less relevant as a swing state , I feel our votes being more accurately represented by a proportional elector system trumps "self-interest."
Perhaps I'm an idealist in this regard.
But consider this. Wouldn't this method move campaigning, even more overtly, to focus on "swing districts"? So, if that were a plausible consequence, wouldn't that be a wash at worst? A stengthening of the state's profile at best?
And just because Colorado voted down the proposal doesn't make it a bad proposal. I'm sure we can all think of all kinds of things people voted against throughout American history that were great ideas.
What would be wonderful, to take from your more "palatable" idea, is if a coalition of states got together and moved to proportional electors. The adage, especially from Conservative circles, is that the two coasts don't accurately reflect "real Americans" (a shaky assertion), so a consortium of Midwestern/Border State Southern states that allocate their electors proportionally could really exert a hell of lot of power. Imagine Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa, Missouri, and Arkansas all banding together to do this? Sure, it's a pipe dream, but it's certainly something to ponder.
Gerrymandering would be an issue, especially in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision. But I don't know how you stop that foolishness.
Q
I find it interesting how we both have idealistic streaks, but they almost never coincide. :)
The more I think about it, the more of a raw deal the early adopters would get and the more power that would be exerted by the states that stay with the traditional allocation of electors.
Using your Midwest bloc for example:
...Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa, Missouri, and Arkansas...
That adds up to 121 electors, each candidate is practically guaranteed 50 of them (since about 40% of the voters won't vote for the other party if their party was sponsoring Hitler). So what happens in reality is that those 10 states are reduced in importance to the 21 electors that can be realistically won.
So, those 10 states, 23.25% of the population (2000 census), would have roughly the same influence as Pennsylvania, 4.37% of the population.
Taken to the extreme, if every state except California adopted proportional allocation, then, in order to win, a candidate would merely have to win California by 1 vote and garner only 44.6% of the rest of the country to win the Presidency.
The beauty of the electoral college is that almost every state becomes worth winning. Therefore, almost every state needs to be convinced that you are the better candidate for President. Missouri is roughly 2% of the U.S. population, but it has national significance under the current system.
You must appeal to the entire country, the weirdos on the coasts and the hicks in fly-over country, to have a shot at becoming President.
If every single state in the Union agreed to the change simultaneously, then it would be worth debating if changing is a good idea or not. I'm not convinced it is, but I'm open to persuasion on the matter.
Post a Comment
<< Home